On Wed, 28 Jan 2004, [iso-8859-1] Anthony Duff wrote:
> I am replying to: > http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg01542.html > From: "MIKE OSSIPOFF" > Subject: [EM] Condorcet for public proposals > Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 09:47:47 +0000 > > Mike wrote, in part, > > > >... SSD, RP, and PC are > >the Condorcet versions to propose for public elections. > > > >That's because those Condorcet versions are the ones with natural > and > >obvious motivation and justification. Obviously, of those 3, PC > isn't as > >good as the other 2. > > As I understand: SSD and RP are excellent methods, they are identical > in virtually every reasonable election result, and it is too > difficult to definitively decide which is better. PC is a very good > method, with the merit of being straightforward and brief to explain. > > Mike implies(?), something that I think is very important. If you > are going to make a serious public proposal, you have to be certain > about your proposal. If you are hesitating over the details, then > you will not inspire confidence. When it comes to a public proposal, > with a public that has little patience for details, you must have > precisely one, well defined proposal. Why not give the voters a choice between several well defined proposals? Do we believe in democracy or not? Forest ---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info